So your point is that it is ok to say very insulting and demeaning things to a group as long as they are the majority? I don't agree with that on ethical grounds, but it definitely doesn't make sense on political grounds.
And I'm not Catholic, by the way, but they aren't a majority in this country...and there is plenty of history of their being oppressed and discriminated against. Personally, I don't think history should affect whether we should insult them now or not, but for those who do feel that way, we should make sure we are honest about our history.
Everyone posting seems to have pretty much made up their mind already, so I'm not sure how much good this will do. But first off, I know it is classic blog practice to "summarize" another's post in the worst way possible, but everyone going off on the response of people who "agreed with Donohue" should really read the posts purporting to do so, especially the original post on faithfuldemocrats! Some might mention Donohue, but they make their own claims and normally only mention Donohue to talk about how whacked and crazy he is. When they mention him it is to explain that just because a crazy guy takes one position doesn't mean they must take the other. Reading this string, that is a point which seems to be lost on most people who post. Simply b/c Donohue criticized Edwards' decision doesn't mean we must all take the opposite position. Are we really sheep who will have our actions and arguments dictated by a wacko like Donahue? The Nazis were strong advocates of public education. Stalin talked all the time about helping the poor. It boggles my mind why all the people posting would want to give Donahue the power to decide our positions. Yet at the core of most responses is the basic point that b/c Donohue criticized Edwards, we must defend him. That argument is based on the assumption that sides are more important than principles, and I think that is a mistake.
Second, there is a lot of self-righteous criticism of people of faith for being upset over the hot, sticky Holy Spirit being injected into Mary's womb, "Christofascists," declarations that Catholics use mythology to justify their misogyny, etc. A simple question, what if these remarks had been made about Jews or gays or African Americans? We all know the calls to fire that blogger would have rung out loud and clear from the blogosphere, and rightly so. Our Party needs to be an open Party, and our Presidential candidate needs to be able to appeal to a wide base of Americans to win. If Kerry had not lost the Catholic vote in '04, he would have breezed into the Presidency. In '06, Dems made major gains with that community and again reclaimed the Catholic vote, not to mention picking up votes from a number of other faith communities. Why throw that away, and since when did our Party become one that openly endorses people who use deeming stereotypes to describe entire groups of Americans?